Search

The legal aspects of the many campus issues were the concerns of the conference sponsored jointly by the Institute of Higher Education and the Center for Continuing Education. The conference, held at the University of Georgia Center for Continuing Education, July 1972, presented and discussed decisions and trends concerning campus law and their implications for and applications to the posture of academic decisionmaking. Issues included an overview of rights and responsibilities on campus; the legal responsibilities of administrators; the relationship between the university and local law enforcement agencies in their response to drug abuse on campus; the rationale determining the legal distinction between public and private institutions of higher education; constitutional rights and non-renewal of faculty contracts; and collective bargaining on campus. (MJM)

Educational leaders have a continuing need to know the legal parameters within which decisions may be made concerning student behavior. In times past, administrative decisions could be made without fear of judicial review. Today this is no longer the case, as courts are ready to come to the rescue of constitutional rights of not only students but faculty, administrators, trustees, and the general public as well. The pertinent legal questions facing educational leaders today range from search and seizure rights, due process requirements of notice and hearing, interim suspension, specificity of rules, and scholastic affairs, to civil actions and double jeopardy. These and many other questions were the concerns of the conference "Higher Education: The Law and Student Protest." The central purpose of the conference was to present and discuss judicial decisions and trends and their implications for and applications to the posture of academic decisionmaking. The issues of concern were questioned and examined, not from a philosophical or sociological point of view, but in light of court decisions and precedents. (Author/HS)

Individual rights and responsibilities are of paramount concern as courts have been increasingly called upon to define them in the wake of campus protests during the 60's. This was the theme of the conference "Higher Education: The Law and Individual Rights and Responsibilities." The central purpose of the conference was to present and discuss judicial decisions and trends and their implications for the applications to the posture of academic decisionmaking. The topics discussed by the conference speakers were: constitutional dimensions of student protest; students' right to privacy; administrators' rights and responsibilities; the rights and responsibilities of students in private institutions; academic freedom ad due process in the classroom; and constitutional rights and nonrenewal of faculty contracts. (HS)

The briefs of selected court cases affecting student dissent and discipline in higher education presented in this report are divided in the following sections: (1) relationship between students and the institution, including contractual theory and in loco parentis; (2) relationship between the courts and education, including cases involving jurisdiction, state action, and scholastic affairs; (3) due process, including cases involving: specificity of rules, notice and hearing, right to counsel, off campus judicial proceedings, freedom of speech, expression and assembly, speaker bans, search and seizure and interim suspension; and (4) equal protection. (AF)

The proliferation of court cases involving student discipline testifies to controversy over administrative procedures. Generally, a college's disciplinary policy is viewed as part of the learning process. Courts in the past have ruled favorably on the contractual theory which decrees that an entering student agrees to abide by certain university rules and regulations, especially in the case of private institutions. Courts have limited the concept of "in loco parentis," decreed that attendance at a college is a privilege, not a right, and made students responsible for lawful conduct. They have generally hesitated to interfere with scholastic affairs and college disciplinary processes unless there has been a clear violation of constitutional rights. Lack of due process has been the basis for most discipline cases brought into court. "Due process," however, has had many interpretations, "Equal protection" of the laws is also difficult to define. Examples of court cases testing various aspects of due process, and guidelines for public institutions are offered. (AF)

This monograph is an update, revision, and extension of an earlier publication entitled: The Legal Aspects of Student Discipline in Higher Education (see ED 036 246). This report includes the new rulings that have been handed down since the publication of the earlier version, and some additional sections. Discussed in this report are: (1) the relationship between students and the school, including such issues as the contractual theory, in loco parentis, attendance as a right or privilege, and student responsibilities; (2) the relationship between the courts and education; jurisdiction and state action; (3) factors relating to due process in student dissent and discipline, such as notice, hearing, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, right to counsel, self-incrimination, rules of evidence, trial by jury, off-campus judicial proceedings, freedom of speech and assembly, speaker bans, search and seizure, and interim suspension; and (4) such questions as equal protection in student dissent and discipline, judicial intervention in scholastic affairs, and the special situation in private institutions. Guidelines for disciplinary proceedings and some recommendations conclude the report. (AF)